Well they did it. Greg McDougall and the electric DHC-2 successfully flew first test flight. They did resort to using lead acid batteries as they are "tried and tested", but had a glitch in the charging system Monday, which was rectified in time. Hopefully lithium tech keeps progressing upward.https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/harbour-air-completes-world-s-first-electric-aircraft-test-flight-1.4723636

Yes, even electric flights of 2 hours will take Many years to be a reality. Harbour Air on the other hand has many of their scheduled flights at 30 minutes or less, making them a ideal candidate for the introduction of electric commercial planes. As, among others, they serve the islands between Vancouver and Vancouver Island, they also have the clientele for this experiment. Some people say for example that Saltspring Island is the last holdout of the hippies of the 70ties, and for them the noise reduction and the reduction in air pollution is probably a good marketing argument.

Harbour Air claims to be the largest operator of seaplanes in the world.

I am a resident of Vancouver Island and have been flying Harbour Air to get to Vancouver for business for years. They are an amazing company, with amazing culture and are always innovating. It is sooooo cool to be able to watch this unfold before our eyes here!!

+Kobe Hunte Don't be a baby, this tech is coming whether or not you're able to get over your emotional attachment to dino juice and BROOMM BROMM!! Youe second sentence is clearly an attempt to calm yourself, but regardless, an electric future is imminent. Maybe consider another career if its gonna' be too hard for you. :)

Electric might have it's place in operations such as this...but long haul, that's quite another story. It's not a matter of making bigger planes that work (fly), it's a matter of range vs. load that makes any sense....as many may know, batteries don't get lighter as you empty them, so you are dragging that dead weight the entire route. And the ability to adjust loading based on payload desired is not easy schlepping batteries about (they're heavy maybe?), but suppose they can get it to the point of loading/unloading them with the luggage...not trivial it would seem.

Improvements in battery technology will help some, but the current chemistries will certainly have their limits. They'll need something else more radical to make a dent in jet engine powered technology over the breadth of the market. Now....having worked in rocket science for a good while, put a fuel cell in this bad boy and you might get onto something...quick...but alas, it uses cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen which much be produced, much like jet fuel and distributed....like electricity. Nothing is easy...or free. Electric powered Everything Will Not "save the world" from whatever it is that it needs saving from, so relax and enjoy the ride...heh.

Let's see how Harbor does with this little venture over time...let the market decide if it lives or dies...I won't be swayed by greenies spewing talking points.

I will be so happy when the Climate Change Hoax is finally disproven and we can go on to normal living with reliable technology. It should be interesting to hear where the electricity and lithium originate and why they need to change the batteries out after each flight to avoid hours of turn around time unless we are using hybrid technology with the horrible fossil fuels.

I understand the alarmists have a back up plan when Climate Change (nee; Global Warming, nee Global cooling) is put to rest like the ozone hole and we can move on to the next "man made" crisis "Continental Drift".

Up vote for you .... Now a bank of solar panels takes up 14% of the land area needed to meet the same electric production as current reservoirs. Battery storage just around the corner and soon we may see wild rivers with NO dams and wild salmon runs once again. a very healthy idea.

Sorry. Sparkie. No electricity is generated from coal in British Columbia, and 86% is generated from hydro. Overall, renewable sources account for 94% of B.C.'s electrical generation. So much for the imagined need of "clean coal". https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/lctrct/rprt/2016cndrnwblpwr/prvnc/bc-eng.html

Of course it would be a shame to get lower operating costs, lower maintenance costs, less noise and less air pollution in places like Victoria Harbour, right downtown, in front of the Legislative Assembly, and all that for naught.

How many batteries are we talking about? Batteries are heavy how do they react at high altitudes? They would be in some series and parallel strings spanning From aft to fwd of aircraft. Empty weight Alone would be huge before passengers and luggage. Ever seen a laptop or cell phone battery catch fire ? Perhaps design it based on a Toyota Prius ?

The batteries we are talking about have successfully been used on spacecraft. I don’t think a Beaver will reach that altitude. As for how many, they are supposedly sufficient for one hour flight time, and the majority of Harbour Air flights are 30 minutes or less.

I guess I beat MH to the punch here that the Boeing 787 fleet was grounded shortly after its intro. due to Li.Ion battery fires. The fix was a stainless steel containment box that, together with the battery, probably weighs more than the conventional battery it replaced. NBAA still has several current advisories for corporate ops. relating to said battery issues, particularly loose batteries in inaccessible stowage.

Not to be the nanny, but unintended or unenvisioned consequences in aviation can be expensive and fatal. If you don't believe that just ax anybody here that has been beatin the merde out of Boeing over the MAX and two airplanes that both hit the deck with the throttles at 94%.

Sorry for the drift, but I hope it starts just east of mexifornia John.

Ok, I understand what you mean, and I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but as far as batteries are concerned, NASA has a pretty good track record. Maybe because most of the basic development was done some time ago when the proportion bean counters to engineers was better.

I think they are a Fire Hazard.... If they catch on fire, due to the composition of the batteries (Lithium Polymer) they have the tendency to catch on fire... Water WILL NOT put these fires out. Only way to put them out is to disconnect them and if they internally short they cannot be put out and can explode... Tesla even released a training video to show them how to cut the battery Cable and to cut people out of the car... Keep in mind, that most localities are not equipped to put out this kind of fire... Further more, being in the air and the battery catches fire.... No thanks.... Keep in mind we are talking about the same type of battery that took the UPS Plane down near Dubai..

I think this is an accident that is waiting to happen... In my opinion if that plane catches fire that you have a slim chance of landing in time... It would be a Burning Hell.. Forgive the terminology!

Ummm...I do not know where u got info from, but worse thing u can do, in a Li-ion or Li-Po battery fire, is try disconnecting them. Tesla's training video is not something I agree on at all, and I've worked on Hybrid technology. Most times, if its a small Li-Po/Li-ion battery that is on fire a Class C is good, but all localities have Class D equipment to snuff out magnesium etc fires and they will extinguish a Li-Po/Li-ion fire..it is not the metal but the evap gases that are ablaze. And 1 is mandated to be carried on the aircraft. Same for 787's...they use, Li-Po/Li-ion technology as well as do other craft.And no, the batteries that took down the UPS plane were not well insulated toughened shell cases like these units, and with your thinking, best get rid of that cell phone, tablet computer, watch, laptop etc as they all have Li-Po/Li-ion batteries in them.

You you are flying along in that plane... The Battery catches Fire... You are at 3500 feet or so... How are you going to out it out... Most planes that size does not have an extinguisher system for the battery!

The battery catches fire? It suffocates itself while sealed in it's chamber...why do you think Boeing took the LiPo 787 batteries and placed them inside a chamber? So if a problem arose, the oxygen would be consumed too quickly to allow a bad situation worse.And yes, 1 of the mandates is a Class D extinguisher be aboard.

Lithium cobalt oxide(LiCoO2), let that sink in, not LiPo was the original Yuasa manufactured battery composition for the 787. It says OXIDE right in the chemical compound name of the battery. Oxide means oxidizer as a compound constituent and will readily supply O2 to any other constituent that is flammable, er, lithium, in said compound. The box was to isolate the happily burning battery with no outside O2 source from other vulnerable components in the same bay. Not, to deprive it of O2 of which it had an internal source. They had no other certified battery or source to replace it! So, "The enclosure Boeing had to add is 185 lb (84 kg) heavier, negating the lighter battery potential."

I do stand partially corrected in that they were not Li-Po's, however they are a Li-ion battery. LiCoO2 is the coating on the positive electrode plates. While many may say it's a LiCoO2 battery, it is not. It is still a Li-ion battery. That being said, even with your snarkiness "let that sink in", LiCoO2 will not "readily" supply oxygen. Yes it will supply it, but Lithium Cobalt Oxide atoms must reach approx. 132 degrees C before the atoms start to break down and supply oxygen. Actually, the FAA never signed off on the Yuasa batteries. They approved MPS supplied batteries which used a different cell structure coating on the electrodes.The box was added both as a safety measure for other components around it, as well as to suffocate any potential outside oxygen source from being present, should a thermal runaway (fire) occur. That enclosure...if they had used old battery tech, it would have been a whole lot more weight, than 185lbs added on top of the Li-ion battery weight.

I am under the impression that the lithium powered ELT which caught fire in the empty 787 parked at LHR in 2013 would have been inaccessible from the cabin in flight, so it would have been irrelevant whether or not a suitable extinguisher was on board.